Check Your Theology At The Door

Have you ever wondered whether or not you should take the whole Bible literally? There are many schools of thought. I can't tell you which is correct (though I'm sure some of you think you could), but I can give you something to think about. 

Long after Charlton Heston told Yul Brynner to "let my people go", God gave the people (through Moses) what has been titled "The Ten Commandments" (NOW do you get the joke?). Another name for The Ten Commandments is "The Great Shalt Nots":

"Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image . . . Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain . . . Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy . . . Honour thy father and thy mother . . . Thou shalt not kill. Thou shalt not commit adultery. Thou shalt not steal. Thou shalt not bear false witness . . . Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's (stuff) . . ." (Exodus 20:3-17 [KJV])

Now, Jesus came along and gave us a more positive spin on the list: "'Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?' Jesus said to him, '"You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind." This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.'" (Matthew 22:36-40 [NKJV])

Being that the religious are never satisfied, He was asked, "'. . . And who is my neighbor?' Then Jesus answered and said: 'A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, who stripped him of his clothing, wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead. Now by chance a certain priest came down that road. And when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. Likewise a Levite, when he arrived at the place, came and looked, and passed by on the other side. But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was. And when he saw him, he had compassion on him, and went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine; and he set him on his own animal, brought him to an inn, and took care of him. On the next day, when he departed, he took out two denarii, gave them to the innkeeper, and said to him, "Take care of him; and whatever more you spend, when I come again, I will repay you." So which of these three do you think was neighbor to him who fell among thieves?' And he said, 'He who showed mercy on him.' Then Jesus said to him, 'Go and do likewise.'" (Luke 10:29b-37 [NKJV])

Sounds pretty simple, doesn't it? The Samaritan (a person who was despised by the Jews) showed compassion on what appears to be a Jew (being the person was travelling FROM Jerusalem at the time), where other Jews, even a priest and a Levite (one of the 12 tribes of Israel - who happen to be the line of the priesthood) didn't want to become "unclean" by becoming involved.

What does Jesus say? "Go and do likewise." Be the neighbor. Realize, this follows the whole, "What is the greatest commandment?" conversation. Or, more accurately, it ties directly into the "What is the greatest commandment?" conversation.

Now I ask you: what if the man who fell among thieves was a known homosexual?

"But, J.P., he wasn't."

Wasn't he? There is no information about the man outside of where he was travelling from and travelling to. Was he an outstanding member of his church? Did he tithe? Was he homosexual? We don't know. Why? Because, apparently to Jesus, it didn't matter. 

Now, I know many who will say that homosexuality is an abomination, and they will quote the Bible to prove it. Here is where the theological rubber meets the road: How do those verses line up with what Jesus HIMSELF told us were the two greatest commandments?

Okay, I lied. I CAN tell you whether or not you can take the whole Bible literally. Ready? 

Whenever you read something that lines up with the two greatest commandments, that is big "B" Bible. If it doesn't, it is small "b" bible. 

"What about what Paul wrote in the epistles regarding homosexuality being an abomination?"

Small "b" bible. 

Nowhere in the two greatest commandments or the "Ten Shalt Nots" do you read anything about homosexuality. For God, it is simply not an issue. For (religious, hyper-controlling) people? You get the idea.

©Emittravel 2020

Is This the Hill You Want to Die On?

There are currently about 121 people/things I follow on Twitter. By "things", I mean like @LHSRangers - the high school where my wife @lisamwiegand teaches. One of the people I follow, is a very intelligent young lady named Jedediah Bila - @JedediahBila - whose descriptions of her life in New York bring lots of laughs. Her Twitter profile says she is "TV host. Author. Columnist. Radio personality. Former Professor/Dean. Animal lover. Superhero wannabe. Was juicing kale before it was cool." Again, worth the follow.

I was going through my feed, when I came across her following tweet: NOM, you've embarrassed yourselves. Badly. "Marriage Group Backs Liberal Dem over Gay Republican": bit.ly/1wFBkxp via @BrietbartNews

My brain immediately went, "WHUH?!?!?"

First off, for clarity, "NOM" stands for "National Organization for Marriage". They have stated that they will "actively oppose" the candidate for the GOP and will endorse the Democrat, even though they say that he is wrong on the issues.

Around the same time, Tim Cook, CEO of Apple, announced that he was gay (I don't think there was any connection between the two events). Included in my Twitter feed were posts of a map of the United States showing in which states Mr. Cook would have lost his job for being gay. Most of the map was colored unfavorably for those who "butter their bread on the other side".

In a previous blog article ("D.O.M.A. is D.U.M.B") I make it pretty clear that "I'm not anti-gay. I'm not pro-gay either. When it comes to the world, I'm ambivalent-gay." Just wanted to make that clear up front.

Let me try to explain something here: when you are voting for a politician, what you are doing is playing the part of employer (or Human Resources) and are saying, "Yes, I believe this person is qualified to do this job," or not. When you are looking to fill a position you look for skills that show that person can do a good job. A good job. That that person can do a GOOD JOB. Does it really matter what color their skin is? No. Does it matter if they like football or not? No. Does it matter if they prefer dark chocolate over milk chocolate? No. (But, for the record, I do prefer dark over milk.) Does it REALLY matter what a person's sexuality is when it comes to doing a GOOD JOB? If I REALLY have to answer that …

But I guess I really do, since I'm writing this.

The thing about the NOM thing is that they would RATHER support a candidate whose stance on issues is considered "wrong" than support a candidate whose stance on issues is considered "right", but turned out to be gay. For people with this mentality, I think a voting booth is a dangerous place, and they should stay far away.

Maybe this will help: Imagine your house is in need of repair, and you need to hire the best carpenter you can find. You find out that the carpenter is gay. So you instead, hire the mechanic - because he isn't. The mechanic will make a mess of your house. But hey! At least you know he isn't gay!

But J.P., don't you know that presidents, and some governors, select judges? Yes, yes I do. Two things: First, judges aren't the supreme rulers (see what I did there?). There are checks and balances built into the system. The problem is that the other two parts of the government need to check and balance - and they don't. And second, the number of judges they can select is far smaller than the myriad of other things they do in their positions, having NOTHING to do with their sexual orientation.

For some reason, there is this mentality that if a Republican is gay, they will abandon everything else to push the gay agenda. That means, for instance, if they are for less spending, less government, and a stronger military, they will abandon those and only push for things that help place "rainbows" on everything. So instead, people vote for the person who will push more spending, more government, and a weaker military, but whose sexual orientation won't have any effect on doing the job.

So I ask you: is this really the hill upon you which you chose to make your stand?

© Emittravel 2014

Stuff My Brain Says #66

The Boy Scouts of America recently voted to allow gay (defined as "homosexual" - not "happy") boys to join starting next year. After that WILL come gay adult scout leaders - it is inevitable. Don't believe me? Pandora's Box people.

Once you allow so-called gay marriage, you then HAVE to allow everything else. Anything less would be considered "intolerance". Now it's gay Boy Scouts, next gay Boy Scout leaders.

And after that I expect a full, PUBLIC apology to the Catholic priesthood for all of the grief given to it, for the apparently faulty prejudice against the claims of pedophilia. (I know that not all gay adults are pedophiles, but one of the main reasons against allowing gay adult scout leaders has been the fear of possible pedophilia.)

© Emittravel 2013

D.O.M.A. is D.U.M.B.

The DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) is back in the news once again. The Supreme Court will  be deciding whether or not it is constitutional. And like so many things, DOMA has its supporters and detractors. In a nutshell, DOMA states that marriage is recognized by the government as between one man and one woman. The question is, should it?

Let me remind my readers of the title of this blog: My Humble But Accurate Opinion. This is my opinion, and one that I think has merit. You may disagree. That is fine. I'm speaking for ME. I am coming at this as a bible-believing Christian. And if you haven't shut me off yet, you will find that those this particular article will most-likely offend ARE Christians. For those of you who know me, you know that I tend to poke things with a stick - because I think we should.

I'm no Supreme Court Justice, but I think DOMA is dumb (clever title, eh?). For all of the screaming about the (so-called) Separation of Church and State, there is this seeming need to have the government validate a religious preference when it comes to marriage. According to our Constitution, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . " Marriage is not a religion, nor is it an exercise of an established religion. It is the definition of a union between a man and a woman, recognized in the eyes of GOD. It is not a union recognized by a particular church, nor is it a union recognized by the STATE. Therefore it falls outside the "jurisdiction" of the government - and should not freak out religious folk.

"Wait a minute, J.P., the state DOES recognize marriage. I have a marriage license to prove it!" You are correct, and incorrect. In this case, we are dealing with semantics. The state licenses the union of two people for one main reason: recognition of shared benefits. Oh, another reason may be is that they charge for the license . . . you know . . . taxes! The state calls it "marriage" for lack of a "better" or more "accurate" term.

I was having a discussion on this topic with a friend at work and he had THE solution to the whole debate: the government should state that they will no longer recognize marriages. They will only recognize civil unions. For the government's purposes, whether you are in a union recognized in the eyes of God, or whether you stood before the Justice of the Peace, they only need to know that you have a legal civil union.

Let me put it this way: civil unions vs. marriage. One recognized by the State; one by God.

"What about 'gay marriage', J.P.? As a Christian,  aren't you supposed to oppose it." I am? What is the main issue here? Is it the fact that two individuals want to have all of the benefits and responsibilities of civil unions, or that their relationship is recognized by God? If we are talking civil unions and NOT marriage, then does it really matter if the union is heterosexual or homosexual?

I remember a minister friend of mine talking about a time when he was out with a friend picking up hitchhikers, getting on the freeway, running the car up to 80+ miles per hour, and telling the hitchhikers they must be saved (I think he was kidding, but it's a good story nonetheless.) One time a hitchhiker was smoking a cigarette and wanted to pray to accept Jesus as his Lord and Savior. This minister's friend said to put out the cigarette first. The minister said, "God can hear through the smoke!" He said that sinning was the "job description" of a sinner. Once they got saved, THEN we can "skin 'em alive!" (He's a funny guy, my minister friend.)

Christians have this view that the world needs to function within the framework of Christian morality, ethics, and rules of conduct. Why? Does it really matter if a sinner sins? At that great day of judgment, will God be concerned that a non-Christian behaved outside of Christian dogma? Or will His only concern be that they knew Him and His Son Jesus? There is only one sin that is worthy of eternal damnation (a.k.a. "eternal separation from God"): denying Jesus Christ. No other sin will matter. Once a person becomes a Christian, THEN will the sins that you commit have weight. The letters of correction (Epistles of the New Testament) that the apostles wrote were for the church, not the world. It is we Christians that must live our lives in accordance with God's ways, not force that upon the world.

I'm not anti-gay. I'm not pro-gay either. When it comes to the world, I'm ambivalent-gay. I don't care one way or the other. Just don't call a civil union "marriage" - God doesn't recognize it between two people of the same gender (that's clear in scripture.)

Listen, DOMA is already on the books. The only two possible options: enforce it, or rescind it. Don't ignore it. If the Supreme Court determines it unconstitutional and wants it struck down, so be it. Marriage in the eyes of God won't change either way.

Of course, removing the word "marriage" and changing it to "civil union" would eliminate the argument and give politicians one less thing to bludgeon each other with . . . which is precisely the reason why it will never happen!

© Emittravel 2013